Topic: A legitimately novel idea for a new crypto. - page 3. (Read 3807 times)

looks quite interesting, would be easier to read if you had put some bullet points into it

it doesnt seem like it should be a hard problem to solve, but it is. thanks for bringing it up, im going to think on it for a while.

There could be a lot of offline people, though. Also what happens if random winner 1 is offline, then after a few minutes random winner 2 is chosen and signs a block, then shortly afterwards random winner 1 wakes up and signs a block and broadcasts it to the network. Which blockchain does the network accept?

No, I've spent enough time on that sort of thing. No more talking, now is the time for doing.


You can't do this because then no one needs to keep track of the history of transactions, thus no one is required to have proof of who should be creating the next tx block.

There is NO way this would fly as a fork. New coin definitely.

Well i can think of 2 possibilities.
One is that miners, instead of hashing empty blocks, hash the transaction block + previous hash + their public key + nonces. If they did this than the second closest (lets call him #2) could publish a transaction block in the hopes that the owner of the randomly chosen key (lets call him #1) was unavailable. I If it worked like this than if #1 returned in time to mint the block than #2's transaction block would be orphaned, otherwise the right to mint the new transaction block could default to #2. this is all wrong let me think on this some more

The other option is that miners do not hash transaction blocks, and instead just hash previous hashes + their public key, and if the owner of the randomly chosen key is off-line than everyone in the network just waits 4 minutes for a confirmation instead of 2.

My idea was to wait for additional mining blocks. I hadn't even considered the possibility of secure single confirmation transactions.

I wonder if you could elaborate on what economic issues it does not address. At some point the currency supply should stabilize as the marginal value of securing one unit of currency becomes higher than the value of new units produced. So inother words, at some point we will reach a point where the unit of currency is worth so little that people lose more than the amount thats being created. then when too much is lost the value goes back up, people work harder to secure the currency and the amount lost is less than is being produced. then the supply keeps oscillating up and down across this line and eventually the amount lost due to carelessness finds a steady predictable equilibrium with the amount of new currency being produced. It seems like a pretty awesome model for maintaining a steady currency supply to me so i would really like to know what it fails to account for.

I've thought about something like this before. What if the owner of the randomly chosen key is offline, or has lost the key? Then what?

You can have extremely rapid confirmations of already confirmed tx. On the other hand, if whoever is selected does not create a tx confirmation list out of a pool of everyone who has a tx in the last 2-3 years, you are waiting for an additional mining block--and potentially many more. However, the amount of data required to monitor this is small, which is good (although lite nodes will have to ask a full node who is the closest--this could be a vulnerability).

Overall, a very huge boon to decentralization, one I espoused with the very first encoin proposal over 2 years ago in that transaction security needs to be separate from money creation.


You mean bittardtarians, not libertarians. There is not a fixed supply of money in any sane school of economic thought. However, there are many economic issues this still does not address, but that does not detract from the fact that this simple idea is probably a lot better than how bitcoin currently works.

thanks so much! i expect some of the details to be off but if the fundamental core concept is sound than thats all i could hope for and would make me very happy indeed.

I'm too drunk to critique this right now, but want to post so I remember to keep track of this.

The idea of mining empty blocks to improve security is an excellent one. The core benefit is that you can have extremely rapid confirmations w/o latency issues.

Will reread this later.

This is meant to be implemented in a new coin, or hard forked? I doubt you could get support for such a radical change in the Bitcoin protocol if that is what you are looking for.

keep the questions coming guys, help me build up my Q&A section please.

Yep i know I have a lot more work to do on my presentation. I was just getting crazy tired by 5am so i decided to go ahead and publish it in a rather rough form and work on it some more after i woke up. 4 hours later apparently...

The thing to understand about the pow is that its just a contrivance for creating a never ending string of varafiable unpredictable numbers that can be used as a means to reach consensus in the network. What you would do as a miner is hash the genesis block + the address you wanted your reward to be payed to + a series of random nonces. the first person to come up with a hash that it below a certain threshold wins the competition, everyone starts trying to hash his block plus the address they want to be payed too. Its just like bitcoin, except the blocks contain no transactions, only the address you want to be payed out too.

Once you have these random numbers that are produced by the miners, you can compare every address recorded in the blockchain and the person with the address that is numerically the closest to that random number earns the right to mint the next transaction block.


Yes absolutely. I don't know how you would make a crypto that was totally resistant to all 51% attacks. The idea here is that, with bitcoin each additional dollar you invest in attempting to get that 51% nets you MORE advantage than the dollar before it, with this system each additional dollar you invest nets you LESS advantage than the dollar before it. Its still possible to be 51% attacked, but it should in theory be significantly more difficult than cryptos that came before it.


I love bitcoin, I don't want to conquer the market, just a niche.

Unless bitcoin has some way to stop users from also using other coins I don't see how it can get locked into first place indefinitely. Personally I see a future where businesses and websites use 3rd party services to manage their crypto transactions and these services support multiple coins. In this scenario users will gravitate to the coins with the best features rather than the ones that have been around the longest.

Interesting. Reserved

Unless BTC somehow becomes hacked and exploited, then I don't think it'll be dethroned from its spot no matter how many new alternatives pop up. It was the first, it's the most popular, and it might just be like the 'qwerty' keyboard layout, first it started out as a prototype but eventually it just became so popular even the person who created it, even when he made a much better improved version, no one wanted to switch over.

Sub

Reserved

Doesn't that mean that a 51% attack can be performed by owning 51% of the addresses?